The CI’s tip gave reasonable suspicion to extend the stop for a dog sniff. Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 2024 PA Super 249, 2024 Pa. Super. LEXIS 467 (Oct. 29, 2024).*
“Moreover, as noted above, Trooper Klun’s personal observation of Harris driving above the 25-mph speed limit, is alone, sufficient probable cause to support the initial traffic stop. Accordingly, suppression of the evidence seized during the traffic stop is not warranted.” United States v. Harris, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195211 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 28, 2024).*
A Transportation Security Officer is an “investigative or law enforcement officer” under Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). Mengert v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 27370 (10th Cir. Oct. 29, 2024).*
Failing to tell the USMJ that defendant had three vehicles not just one when probable cause was shown as to the one cited in the warrant wasn’t a Franks violation. United States v. Easter, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196070 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 29, 2024).*
The Chronicle-Telegram: Elyria YWCA holds event to remember 4th Amendment pioneer Dollree Mapp by Richard Perrins (“The Elyria YWCA held an event Wednesday to teach about Dollree Mapp, a Cleveland woman whose Supreme Court case set precedent for illegal search and seizure. The event, held on Wednesday afternoon at the Elyria YWCA on West Avenue in partnership with the Lorain County Section of the National Council of Negro Women, Lorain Negro Business and Professional Women’s Club and Outside Circle Theater Project, recognized Mapp’s influence with a lunch and discussion on the anniversary of her birth. Mapp, who was born on Oct. 30, 1923, died in 2014 with ‘little fanfare,’ said Charlita Anderson-White, social justice chair for the Elyria YWCA. The group wanted to pay tribute to someone who, while not perfect, was instrumental in civil right history, she said.”).
Not to burst their bubble, but Dollree Mapp’s lawyers and the state never even briefed the exclusionary rule. The Court just made it up. Treatise § 7.04 n.4, citing Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 676–77 (1961) (dissenting opinion).
Posted inExclusionary rule|Comments Off on Chronicle-Telegram: Elyria YWCA holds event to remember 4th Amendment pioneer Dollree Mapp
Reason: After 100 Years, End the Open Fields Doctrine by Joe Lancaster (“In a decision issued at the dawn of Prohibition, the Supreme Court quietly gutted a freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights: the protection against unwarranted search and seizure. The 100th anniversary of that decision is a perfect time to kill the open fields doctrine.”)
“Based on our review of the record, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith’s motion for return of his electronic devices. At the time of Smith’s request, it appears that the property was still being held by the Attorney General’s Office for a lawful purpose, an active investigation. As previously discussed, Smith has not shown that information contained on his devices was materially exculpatory. Furthermore, as previously discussed, it was Smith’s own lack of diligence in retrieving the information long before the first trial date was established, along with his later lack of cooperation in providing passwords, which could have resulted in the devices being returned, which caused his inability to regain possession of the items.” State v. Smith, 2024-Ohio-5168, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 3879 (4th Dist. Oct. 18, 2024).
A motel operator doesn’t have standing to contest searches of individuals who rent from him. Patel v. City of L.A., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195589 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2024).*
“The Court concludes that a reasonable officer in the position of Detective Altendorfer could believe that the information provided by the corroborated CRI was not stale and afforded a sufficient basis to believe that evidence of an ongoing drug trafficking operation would be found as a result of the dog sniff of the Residence’s door.” United States v. Williams, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195172 (D. Minn. Oct. 28, 2024).*
Posted inCell phones, Informant hearsay, Privileges, Standing|Comments Off on OH4: Return of cell phone denied; it’s still potential evidence, and part of delay is refusing to give passcode
Defendant was frisked a second time during execution of a search warrant, and a gun was found. The second frisker didn’t know about the first. There was still reasonable suspicion for a frisk that he was armed and dangerous. United States v. Rollins, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195547 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2024).
Window tint was claimed to be pretext for defendant’s stop because the officers never followed up on that. The subjective motives of the officer aren’t to be delved into, and there was otherwise an objective basis for the stop. United States v. Person, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195118 (D.D.C. Oct. 28, 2024).*
Defendant’s statement made during the execution of the search warrant was voluntary. This was not a breach of the door. They knocked and were let in and it wasn’t otherwise confrontational. United States v. Parker, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195115 (D.D.C. Oct. 28, 2024).*
This 2255 Fourth Amendment claim is just a slightly different version of the search claim already affirmed on appeal, and this fares no better. United States v. Jefferson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195170 (E.D. La. Oct. 28, 2024).*
A postal worker’s information that defendant had lots of cash and was receiving packages that smelled like marijuana was probable cause for his house. State v. Middleton, 2024-Ohio-5172, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 3877 (7th Dist. Oct. 28, 2024).*
The use of a flashlight during a prison strip search doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. Smith v. McGinley, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 27239 (3d Cir. Oct. 28, 2024).*
It was objectively reasonable for the officer to fire his weapon when one was pointed at him. Naji v. City of Dearborn, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 27258 (6th Cir. Oct. 28, 2024).*
Not a Fourth Amendment case but interesting: The common law right of access to search warrant materials doesn’t apply to cooperation agreements. United States v. Kincaide, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 27259 (6th Cir. Oct. 28, 2024).*
The dog sticking his nose through the window was a search, but the officers already had probable cause by then. Therefore, no exclusionary. United States v. Newberry, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195271 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 28, 2024).
On the government’s motion in limine, where defendant doesn’t challenge the search, defendant is precluded from arguing that the investigation and search warrant wasn’t complete. United States v. Montanez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194605 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2024).* [I’d say that’s wrong because it tends to show that the police just assumed guilt.]
2255 petitioner pleads that defense counsel was ineffective for not arguing a lack of probable cause for the warrant, but doesn’t mention the good faith exception. He couldn’t win on probable cause or the good faith exception. United States v. Harp, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194730 (W.D. La. Oct. 24, 2024).*
Because a minor 16 or over can be cited for a seatbelt violation, the officer could ask for defendant’s ID. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 2024 Mass. App. LEXIS 146 (Oct. 28, 2024).*
Digital Boundaries: Fourth Amendment Protections in a Connected World — The Presumption of Innocence (Podcast) (“Modern technology is testing the limits of the Fourth Amendment and redefining the parameters of privacy. Michael Price, Litigation Director of the Fourth Amendment Center at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, joins host Matt Adams to dive into some of the most pressing issues at the intersection of criminal law and technology: geofencing, reverse warrants, facial recognition and forensic genealogy. Will case law catch up with technology?”)
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Podcast: Fourth Amendment Protections in a Connected World
The R&R also decided the good faith exception applied to this search, but defense counsel didn’t object. It’s a meritless issue, so defense counsel can’t be ineffective for not objecting. United States v. Harp, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194730 (W.D. La. Oct. 24, 2024).*
2255 petitioner brought an interrogation claim, and he later added a Fourth Amendment claim, but it was outside the statute of limitations and is barred. It doesn’t satisfy the relation back doctrine. United States v. Jones, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194581 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 25, 2024).*
Pole camera surveillance showed defendant pointing a gun at a man, and that supported his sentencing enhancement. United States v. Dennis, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 27147 (7th Cir. Oct. 25, 2024).*
The presence of a drug dog during the traffic stop wasn’t argued by the defense, but the court goes ahead and says it was legal because the officer was diligently filling out the paperwork for the stop. Adams v. Commonwealth, 2024 Ky. App. LEXIS 95 (Oct. 25, 2024).*
Plaintiffs challenge the Corporate Transparency Act on several grounds. As to their claim the reporting requirement violates the Fourth Amendment, there is no likelihood of success on the merits under California Bankers decided 50 years ago. Community Ass’ns Inst. v. Yellen, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193958 (E.D. Va. Oct. 24, 2024).
The affiant officer’s estimate of age in child pornography was not a Franks issue, even if he was off by a bit. United States v. Echols, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194119 (D.S.D. Oct. 21, 2024).*
Driving a U-Haul truck in the middle of the night near the border in an area known for human smuggling was highly unusual and added up to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Emerson, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 27128 (5th Cir. Oct. 25, 2024).*
Stone bars 2254 relief: “A petitioner has received a full and fair opportunity if ‘(1) he clearly apprised the state court of his Fourth Amendment claim along with the factual basis for that claim, (2) the state court carefully and thoroughly analyzed the facts, and (3) the court applied the proper constitutional case law to those facts.’” He got that. Davis v. Thomas, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194243 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 25, 2024).*
Exclusion is not the remedy for a knock-and-announce violation, following Hudson under state constitution, too. State v. Velasquez, 2024 OK CR 29, 2024 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 28 (Oct. 24, 2024).
Officers had a warrant for defendant’s arrest, and when his car was stopped, he wouldn’t get out right away. That became probable cause for the car. Even if probable cause was lacking, there was a valid inventory. United States v. McKen, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193019 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2024).*
Reasonable suspicion: “During the course of Trooper Allen’s investigation of the traffic violation that warranted the initial stop, he smelled marijuana emanating from Appellant’s vehicle and observed that Appellant’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy. … Trooper Allen further testified that Appellant acknowledged using marijuana at 9 p.m. earlier that evening and presented him with a ‘dab pen’ that contained suspected THC wax. … Thereafter, Trooper Allen asked Appellant to exit his vehicle so that he could conduct field sobriety tests.” Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 2024 PA Super 245 (Oct. 25, 2024).*
Shooting at SWAT officers executing a warrant justified a 6 level Sentencing Guideline enhancement. United States v. Weaver, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 27036 (6th Cir. Oct. 24, 2024).
The affidavit for warrant describing two CI’s buys from defendant at his house was probable cause. United States v. Geer, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 27041 (6th Cir. Oct. 24, 2024).*
Defendant’s standing affidavit for an email warrant doesn’t specify the email accounts, so he doesn’t show standing. United States v. Smith, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192993 (W.D. N.Y. Aug. 28, 2024), adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191970 (W.D. N.Y. Oct. 22, 2024).*
There was sufficiently minimal nexus for defendant’s house, and the good faith exception applies. Probable cause isn’t even decided. United States v. Hewlett, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 27037 (6th Cir. Oct. 24, 2024).*
The officer putting a gun to defendant’s head while he was in line at a convenience store was an arrest. Just having a gun on you in Illinois is no longer a crime. “But there was no swiftly developing situation here. The only facts known to Morgan was that Williams was a Black man with a gun in his hoodie pocket in an area where crime had occurred in the past. In other words, at the moment Morgan put his gun on the back of Williams’s head, he lacked probable cause to arrest him.” United States v. Williams, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193869 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2024).
“Agent Anderson’s affidavit cited information from a variety of sources, including confidential informants, Facebook messages, and GPS data. Those sources each offered evidence–oftentimes corroborating evidence–supporting the Magistrate Judge’s finding of probable cause. The corroborating evidence of criminal activity was significant, particularly with respect to the organization’s pattern of purchasing drugs in Connecticut and selling them in Vermont, with proceeds then held by Defendant.” Also, the warrant was not stale. United States v. Barbosa, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193490 (D. Vt. Oct. 24, 2024).*
The “loud” smell of marijuana coming from defendant’s car was probable cause for a search. The delay in the search was because the officer was waiting for backup. United States v. Brown, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26959 (6th Cir. Oct. 23, 2024).*
The record supported the finding that defendant’s wife consented to the search. Her behavior, including standing in the open doorway and not protesting the officer’s entry, indicated implied consent. In addition, the court found that he did not expressly deny consent; the body camera footage showed no objections to the officers entering the home. State v. Salah, 335 Or. App. 576 (Oct. 23, 2024).
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not moving to suppress a search that was conducted by a trusted confederate who turned out to be a government agent. Ball v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193249 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2024).*
Erring on the side of caution, the court grants a Franks hearing so defendant can develop his issues. United States v. Maiden, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193463 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 24, 2024).*
Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument that defense counsel was deficient in not raising a novel argument about not following SCOTUS’s Hudson knock-and-announce case fails. No reasonable defense lawyer would have seen the need to raise it, and the merits of that issue don’t even have to be decided. People v. Hayward, 2024 NY Slip Op 05243, 2024 N.Y. LEXIS 1634 (Oct. 24, 2024).
Plaintiff’s mere mention of the Fourth Amendment on appeal wasn’t enough to make a record. City of Waco v. Page, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 7571 (Tex. App. – Waco Oct. 24, 2024).*
For a § 2241 habeas, the legality of defendant’s pretrial incarceration is mooted by the conviction. Swan v. Friot, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26871 (10th Cir. Oct. 24, 2024).*
Defendant’s traffic stop for too much junk on the dashboard and rearview mirror is supported by the bodycam. United States v. Maldonado, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26889 (2d Cir. Oct. 24, 2024).*
The Washington State constitutional exclusionary rule is categorical and a privacy violation almost always results in exclusion. They had already rejected the good faith exception under state law. Here, it was attenuation, and a new crime alone isn’t enough. State v. McGee, 2024 Wash. LEXIS 541 (Oct. 24, 2024):
“Perry first challenges the validity of the search warrants for call and location data from his two cellphones. Law-enforcement officers generally need a warrant to conduct a ‘search’ that intrudes upon a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. … But a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his location while moving in public or ‘in the real-time location data that their cellular telephones transmit.’ Thus, the officers’ use of Perry’s real-time location data was not a Fourth Amendment search, and so they did not need a warrant to obtain it. And for the same reason, we need not address the validity of those warrants to hold that the district court rightly denied Perry’s supplemental motion to suppress. …” The traffic stop was also valid. United States v. Perry, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26842 (6th Cir. Oct. 22, 2024).
Handcuffing defendant was reasonable. He was bigger than the officer, and the officer was outnumbered at the scene. United States v. Williams, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26843 (6th Cir. Oct. 22, 2024).*
Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege his excessive force claim. Ellar v. City of Mesa, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26859 (9th Cir. Oct. 23, 2024).*
Defendant’s car GPS snitched him off to the dealer where the officers got the ping information. “The Cobb detective also discovered that the Camry had a GPS system that pinged its location to the dealership, and she obtained a search warrant for the information, which was tendered to evidence. The GPS data corresponded with the locations of Dillon’s incident, the location where her purse was discovered, and the various locations of the transactions and attempted transactions.” Olushola v. State, 2024 Ga. App. LEXIS 418 (Oct. 23, 2024). (All is not lost by this. I persuaded a prosecutor that a rental car’s GPS would prove that my client, a passenger in the car, was picked up at the Pheonix airport after the drugs were put in the car in Los Angeles, and that supported he was unaware. They nolle prossed him.)
Officers preparing a search warrant for defendant’s house were also watching it from a “covert camera” to time the search to arrest their targets. State v. Ward, 2024-Ohio-5073 (1st Dist. Oct. 23, 2024).*
Officers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant for the purpose of investigating his activities minutes later when he got out of his car. Both officers observed a transaction that contained indicia of an unlawful drug sale, which was more than a mere hunch that criminal activity had taken place. Statements by defendant and his girlfriend implying the presence of contraband in the apartment, corroborated the officers’ belief that evidence of crime would be located in the apartment, and that was sufficient to establish probable cause to search the apartment. State v. Keese, 2024-Ohio-5075 (1st Dist. Oct. 23, 2024).*
Officers executing an arrest warrant for murder could conduct a protective sweep. United States v. Moss, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191835 (M.D. Ala. Sep. 9, 2024), adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190695 (M.D.Ala. Oct. 21, 2024).
Children’s services “ordering” plaintiff to submit to a drug test stated a claim for relief. Chappel v. Adams Cty. Children’s Servs., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26698 (6th Cir. Oct. 22, 2024).
This child pornography warrant was not based on stale information because it is almost always kept for a long time. United States v. Adams, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26710 (6th Cir. Oct. 21, 2024).*
Defendant raised his Fourth Amendment claims in his direct appeal, so he can’t raise it in his 2255, so no CoA. United States v. Mirabal, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26765 (10th Cir. Oct. 23, 2024).*
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." —Me
"Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well." –Josh Billings (pseudonym of Henry Wheeler Shaw), Josh Billings on Ice, and Other Things (1868) (erroneously attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson, among others)
“I am still learning.” —Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced." —Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." —Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today." — Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property." —Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment." —United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth." —Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable." —Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." —Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” —United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.” —United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need." —Mick Jagger & Keith Richards, Let it Bleed (album, 1969)
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]
“Children grow up thinking the adult world is ordered, rational, fit for purpose. It’s crap. Becoming a man is realising that it’s all rotten. Realising how to celebrate that rottenness, that’s freedom.” – John le Carré, The Night Manager (1993), line by Richard Roper
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." —Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)
The book was dedicated in the first (1982) and sixth (2025) editions to Justin William Hall (1975-2025). He was three when this project started in 1978.
